What the hell is WRONG with being friends with Russia?

[sneakypete]

You're thinking of the USSR.  But we're suggesting that Putin is more interested in establishing something like the "Old Russia" under the Czars -- with him, of course, as the Czar.  Certainly his actions suggest something of the sort.

@r9etb

Ok,the Czar thing I can not only go along with,but will add it was what needed to be done to prevent total anarchy in Russia.

[r9etb]

@r9etb   @Longmire

Ok,so tell us why we should give a damn about Syria,one way or another.

1.  We don't want Islamofascist nutjobs in control of the Suez Canal
2.  We don't want Islamofascist nutjobs in control of the Middle East oil supply
3.  We don't want Islamofascist nutjobs to overrun Israel, our ally, and only sane country in the region
4.  We also don't want Russian hegemony over the region, although Putin seems to be establishing that due to Obama's ineptitude.
5.  We don't want Europe beholden to the Islamofascist nutjobs through oil or access to the Suez Canal, nor do we want them subject to Russia for the same reasons.
6.  The only plausible way to keep Iran hemmed in, is to have allies, influence, and outright footholds in the countries surrounding it. 
7.  Like it or not, only the US has the means to keep the region somewhat stable, and that stability has been sacrificed to satisfy Obama's sophomoric ideas.

And Syria seems to be the key to the whole deal.  So of course we care.

We could go on to discuss Chinese interests in the region as well, but surely you get the idea.

[dfwgator]

Assad's a lot of things, an Islamo-Fascist isn't one of them.

[r9etb]

it was what needed to be done to prevent total anarchy in Russia.

It was certainly one way to do it, and certainly in keeping with Russian history and culture.  So perhaps it was the only way to achieve it.

But stabilizing Russia was only the first part.  What we now see is a different phase: an expansionist policy not unlike what Russia was doing in the run-up to the First World War.  The roots of that are partly a desire to restore what the Soviets had done; and partly it's Putin's own ambitions as a hegemon.

[r9etb]

Assad's a lot of things, an Islamo-Fascist isn't one of them.

Agreed.  As bad as he is, the alternative -- an Islamofascist state -- is a lot worse.  Putin's actually doing the world a favor by supporting him.

We do have an interest in Syria; Obama's just too ... Obama ... to realize where it truly is.

[dfwgator]

Agreed.  As bad as he is, the alternative is a lot worse.  Putin's actually doing the world a favor by supporting him.

And yeah, Assad and his Dad occasionally boast about taking back the Golan Heights, but it's more for domestic consumption than anything.  They just enjoy being rich and in power.  They know going into the Golan Heights would end all that, tout de suite.

[endicom]

@r9etb

Ok,the Czar thing I can not only go along with,but will add it was what needed to be done to prevent total anarchy in Russia.

One of the post-Mao Chinese leaders was asked when China would liberalize more than it had. His answer was that China would not do what Russia had done. I surprised myself in agreeing with the head of the PRC. On that one matter, mind you.

[sneakypete]

1.  We don't want Islamofascist nutjobs in control of the Suez Canal
2.  We don't want Islamofascist nutjobs in control of the Middle East oil supply<<

@r9etb

Too late to be worried about a done deal.


3.  We don't want Islamofascist nutjobs to overrun Israel, our ally, and only sane country in the region<<

I don't give a rabid rats ass about Israel one way or the other. I worry about America,and Israel hasn't and won't do a damn thing to help or benefit America unless it is in their own selfish self-interest to do so.


>>4.  We also don't want Russian hegemony over the region, although Putin seems to be establishing that due to Obama's ineptitude.<<

Due to the ineptitude and outright corruption of damn near our whole professional political class of criminals.


5.  We don't want Europe beholden to the Islamofascist nutjobs through oil or access to the Suez Canal, nor do we want them subject to Russia for the same reasons.<<

And here I was thinking that Europe was a continent filled with independent nations with military and banks of their own! Here's a thought,how about tell them to take out their own damn trash?


6.  The only plausible way to keep Iran hemmed in, is to have allies, influence, and outright footholds in the countries surrounding it.  <<

This wasn't a problem until the idiot Boy Jorge ordered Saddam Hussein removed from power and hanged,so if you want to blame anyone for that exercise in stupidity,blame Boy Jorge and the reptiles that control the RNC.


>>7.  Like it or not, only the US has the means to keep the region somewhat stable, and that stability has been sacrificed to satisfy Obama's sophomoric ideas.<<

I don't give a damn if they are stable or not. That's THEIR problem,not ours. They ain't our children and we didn't take them in to raise. We don't need their oil,and all I require out of them is they keep the hell out of America,or learn to love glowing in the dark.

>>And Syria seems to be the key to the whole deal.  So of course we care.<<

YOU care. I still don't give a damn.

 

[sneakypete]

It was certainly one way to do it, and certainly in keeping with Russian history and culture.  So perhaps it was the only way to achieve it.

But stabilizing Russia was only the first part.  What we now see is a different phase: an expansionist policy not unlike what Russia was doing in the run-up to the First World War.  The roots of that are partly a desire to restore what the Soviets had done; and partly it's Putin's own ambitions as a hegemon.

@r9etb

In other words,Russia is just doing what we are doing,but doing it better because they don't have the corruption we have. Which is something I am a little shocked to write. Hooda thunk THOSE words would ever be said?

[r9etb]

Well, Pete, you basically agreed with everything I said, and then slathered on a hefty pile of your poorly-informed personal hatreds. 

Do you actually have a point?

[sneakypete]

Well, Pete, you basically agreed with everything I said, and then slathered on a hefty pile of your poorly-informed personal hatreds. 

Do you actually have a point?

@r9etb

Yes,but you obviously can't or won't understand it because you are too wrapped up with us being the Worlds Daddy.

[Longmire]

1.  We don't want Islamofascist nutjobs in control of the Suez Canal
2.  We don't want Islamofascist nutjobs in control of the Middle East oil supply
3.  We don't want Islamofascist nutjobs to overrun Israel, our ally, and only sane country in the region
4.  We also don't want Russian hegemony over the region, although Putin seems to be establishing that due to Obama's ineptitude.
5.  We don't want Europe beholden to the Islamofascist nutjobs through oil or access to the Suez Canal, nor do we want them subject to Russia for the same reasons.
6.  The only plausible way to keep Iran hemmed in, is to have allies, influence, and outright footholds in the countries surrounding it. 
7.  Like it or not, only the US has the means to keep the region somewhat stable, and that stability has been sacrificed to satisfy Obama's sophomoric ideas.

None of these things makes Syria a vital US interest and even if your disjointed reasoning were accepted, why on earth would you destabilize the secular government in Syria?

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
6:20am · 5 Sep 2013

[r9etb]

None of these things makes Syria a vital US interest

You're wrong.